Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ExTheist · 06-29-2003, 10:08 AM

Sadly the Holocaust really did happen. I think that for the most part that people who deny it are fascists who realize that the Holocaust gives their cause a bad name. The denial of the Holocaust is also a way of insulting the victims of fascism during WWII. I have read articles by racists here in the U.S. who argue that "slavery was not THAT bad" or some such crap. York and his ilk need to get used to the fact that straight white males are no longer going to call all of the shots in this world. Your days of having privileges at the expense of others are over forever.
Imagine how much more dull this country would be without the influnce of African and Jewish folks!

"Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"

Evangelion · 06-29-2003, 10:10 AM

An interesting excerpt from The Goebbels Diaries (1948) pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942:
The F�hrer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942:
The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

Looks pretty clear to me.

SLD · 06-29-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FPY-
What about me? Shouldn't I get angry when confronted by idle and repetitive rhetoric, inflated "historical" facts and figures, and politically motivated "historical" accounts? It's funny that I am called an anti-Semite. I am an anti-Semite for talking about - not even denying - the holocaust. Excellent!

I admire the Jews greatly - but that does not give them a free reign over the history of the holocaust. Just because some Jewish people lost some relatives does not prove anything.

The holocaust: let's hear both sides

What is 'holocaust denial'?

Elie Wiesel

And, please, no op-eds on the history of the IHR.

Holocaust deniers are stupider than creationists - and twice as dishonest. The link to Elie Wiesel article is ridiculous. Have you read Wiesel's book or just these ridiculously stupid and lying articles?

Just so you know, Wiesel never claimed that Jewish babies were burned alive. He claimed they were burned - but the burning was after they had been gassed to death. The crematoriums were not for living jews, but a way to get rid of the evidence of the holocaust. What an idiotic website. Only a complete and fucking moron would deny the holocaust.

SLD

Evangelion · 06-29-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Just because some Jewish people lost some relatives does not prove anything.

If that's all it was, you might have a point. But it was so much more than just "some Jewish people" losing "some relatives."

I don't know what offends me the most; your ignorance or your wanton insensitivity.

nj_heathens · 06-29-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthias j.
You can't call the slaughters by Stalin a holocaust, because the word itself reffers to the killing of Jewish people. Stalins camps were politically inspired not racially.

Let's try to keep factual what we know to be fact -- in this case, the origins of the word holocaust:

From dictionary.com (note: some translation may not be carried over from cut-n-paste):

Quote:

hol�o�caust n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

2a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: �Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe� (Emanuel Litvinoff).
2b. A massive slaughter: �an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust� (Rod Nordland).

3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, burnt offering, from Old French holocauste, from Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos, burnt whole : holo-, holo- + kaustos, burnt (from kaiein, to burn).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
holo�caustal or holo�caustic adj.

Usage Note: Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans. Ninety-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of holocaust in the phrase nuclear holocaust. Sixty percent of the Panel accepts the sentence As many as two million people may have died in the holocaust that followed the Khmer Rouge takeover in Cambodia. But because of its associations with genocide, people may object to extended applications of holocaust. When the word is used to refer to death brought about by natural causes, the percentage of the Panel accepting drops sharply. Only 31 percent of the Panel approves the sentence In East Africa five years of drought have brought about a holocaust in which millions have died. In a 1987 survey, just 11 percent approved the use of holocaust to summarize the effects of the AIDS epidemic. This suggests that other figurative usages such as the huge losses in the Savings and Loan holocaust may be viewed as overblown or in poor taste. �When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war.

Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston (�that which is completely burnt�), which was a translation of Hebrew �l� (literally �that which goes up,� that is, in smoke). In this sense of �burnt sacrifice,� holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to �something totally consumed by fire,� and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s. Here it parallels and may have been influenced by another Hebrew word, �� (�catastrophe,� in English, Shoah). In the Bible �� has a range of meanings including �personal ruin or devastation� and �a wasteland or desert.� �� was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but the phrase ha-�� (�the catastrophe�) became established only after World War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn (�destruction�), another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Many are recommending Michael Shermer's chapter on Holocaust denial from his book Why People Believe Weird Things, and I'd like to point out that Shermer has since expanded on this subject in a more recent book titled Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, Arthur Hertzberg (and if a moderator can change this Amazon link to benefit II, please do).

Mrs. Heathen

Born Free · 06-29-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FPY-
What about me? Shouldn't I get angry when confronted by idle and repetitive rhetoric, inflated "historical" facts and figures, and politically motivated "historical" accounts? It's funny that I am called an anti-Semite. I am an anti-Semite for talking about - not even denying - the holocaust. Excellent!

I admire the Jews greatly - but that does not give them a free reign over the history of the holocaust. Just because some Jewish people lost some relatives does not prove anything.

The holocaust: let's hear both sides

What is 'holocaust denial'?

Elie Wiesel

And, please, no op-eds on the history of the IHR.

No you have no right to get angry. Why should you be angry??? Every single one of your posts in this thread tells me something and I feel I'd be better banging my head off a brick wall but I shall persevere.

You cannot tell me you admire the jews greatly in one sentence and show little or no compassion in the rest of your posts. If anyone paints you as being an anti-semite you have done that all on your own.

Now tell me what you believe happened or didn't happen in the holocaust, humour me. Please also explain this fascination with Elie Wiesel that you have it's begining to sound almost like an obsession.

Swamp thing I do have the same sense of horror at the plight of the Russian people however this thread is not about Russia or Stalin or any other group massacred. York has expressed doubt as to whether the holocaust happened at all in particular the gassings.

Let's not turn this into what about these people and those people and let's not bring the Israel-Palestine mess into this, please.

-FPY- · 06-29-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthias j.
Maybe we could call you anti-semite because you consider Francis Parker Yockey your hero? I don't know much about him, but Google thaught very little positive things about him, most sources referred to him as neo-fascist and anti-semite. You have to admit it's rather suspicious when someone with a nick like yours contests -- maybe rightfully -- the truth of the holocaust?

Francis Parker Yockey was the greatest philosopher ever. I can highly recommend his works and essays. Of course, Google would find results that call him a neo-fascist and an anti-Semite - he remains one of the most under-rated, mysterious and misunderstood visionaries of the post-war period. His opposition towards Jews was on the grounds of cultural vitalism, and not a petty, personal hatred.

-

To all -

I don't particularly mind if the holocaust did happen (and, of course, it did) - but what I do mind are exaggerations and lies which skew historical fact. You owe it to the 'six million' to preserve the events surrounding their deaths as accurately as possible - however convenient it may be to over-simplify and over-estimate events.

Just because I admire the Jews does not mean that I care about events that may or may not have happened to them quite some time ago.

By the way, why is it that all people that write books on the holocaust - books which affirm and exaggerate it - are Jewish? Are their biases and inclinations to be trusted?

There is a rebuttal to the Nizkor rebuttal somewhere, Evangelion.

Quote:

So you're saying that millions of Jews, including small children, deserved to die?

I am saying that there were reasons behind the German aggression towards Jews - reasons that weren't just 'bigoted' or 'insane' or 'a myth.' I am not justifying them.

Arken · 06-29-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FPY-
By the way, why is it that all people that write books on the holocaust - books which affirm and exaggerate it - are Jewish?

Not a Jew.

Not a Jew.

Not a Jew.

Not a Jew.

Not a Jew.

Definitely not a Jew

etc., etc.

You lose yet again. Stop trying to justify your bigotry.

Also, did you ever think that maybe most books on the Holocaust are written by Jews because Jews were one of the groups most directly affected by it? I bet you that there aren't too many white people writing books about life in the L.A. Projects either. MUST BE A CONSPIRACY AMONG THOSE DARK-SKINNED FOLK!

Born Free · 06-29-2003, 02:38 PM

Oh dear Arken you've pointed out a book that has an introduction by Elie Wiesel, the revisionists obsession, it will probably not count. FPY the book I pointed you to was written by three non jewish German journalists. Try to read it one day, please.

To all you revisonists who may be watching this closely or those who hero worship Hitler you do know that he came from a family of inbred simple folk don't you??? And you are aware he also didn't know if his grandfather was jewish or not and was mortified by the rumours that he had himself jewish blood, that he himself had a passionate relationship with his half niece, the only woman he truly loved to boot who when died in suspicious circumstances left Hitler close to suicide (if only) but I can't help wondering if that was a little guilt over his jealous posessiveness behaviour toward her or guilt that he was impotent for a good part of his life and in order to get aroused this girl aged around 19 possibly younger was forced to squat above him naked while he masturbated finally making her piss on him at the crucial momment.

He was a sadist-masochistic pyschopath, with him and his warped twisted sick mind, the anhilation of the jewish race along with the partial distintegration of other undesirables was inevitable. Although the anti-semitism was always there, he fanned the flames just a little bit higher along with his high ranking party members and little wannabes after a piece of the glory in the thousand year reich.

I spit on them all.

Hedwig · 06-29-2003, 04:03 PM

Well, I'll say one thing for this thread: my reading list has doubled.

Shermer's book points out that holocaust deniers have a tendancy to look down their noses at people who have "emotive" responses to holocaust denier arguments. Basically, if you get pissed off at their rhetoric, they could see it as a victory of their "logical" theories over our "illogical" and "emotive" responses.

You gotta love how they mask their (often anti-semetic...I don't care what excuses they come up with) rhetoric in the guise of "logical" and/or "truth-seeking" scholarship.

06-29-2003, 10:10 AM	#62
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	An interesting excerpt from The Goebbels Diaries (1948) pp. 86, 147-148): February 14, 1942: The F�hrer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness. March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor. Looks pretty clear to me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2003, 10:08 AM	#61
ExTheist Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 238	Sadly the Holocaust really did happen. I think that for the most part that people who deny it are fascists who realize that the Holocaust gives their cause a bad name. The denial of the Holocaust is also a way of insulting the victims of fascism during WWII. I have read articles by racists here in the U.S. who argue that "slavery was not THAT bad" or some such crap. York and his ilk need to get used to the fact that straight white males are no longer going to call all of the shots in this world. Your days of having privileges at the expense of others are over forever. Imagine how much more dull this country would be without the influnce of African and Jewish folks! "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"

06-29-2003, 02:38 PM	#69
Born Free Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,177	Oh dear Arken you've pointed out a book that has an introduction by Elie Wiesel, the revisionists obsession, it will probably not count. FPY the book I pointed you to was written by three non jewish German journalists. Try to read it one day, please. To all you revisonists who may be watching this closely or those who hero worship Hitler you do know that he came from a family of inbred simple folk don't you??? And you are aware he also didn't know if his grandfather was jewish or not and was mortified by the rumours that he had himself jewish blood, that he himself had a passionate relationship with his half niece, the only woman he truly loved to boot who when died in suspicious circumstances left Hitler close to suicide (if only) but I can't help wondering if that was a little guilt over his jealous posessiveness behaviour toward her or guilt that he was impotent for a good part of his life and in order to get aroused this girl aged around 19 possibly younger was forced to squat above him naked while he masturbated finally making her piss on him at the crucial momment. He was a sadist-masochistic pyschopath, with him and his warped twisted sick mind, the anhilation of the jewish race along with the partial distintegration of other undesirables was inevitable. Although the anti-semitism was always there, he fanned the flames just a little bit higher along with his high ranking party members and little wannabes after a piece of the glory in the thousand year reich. I spit on them all.

06-29-2003, 04:03 PM	#70
Hedwig Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,921	Well, I'll say one thing for this thread: my reading list has doubled. Shermer's book points out that holocaust deniers have a tendancy to look down their noses at people who have "emotive" responses to holocaust denier arguments. Basically, if you get pissed off at their rhetoric, they could see it as a victory of their "logical" theories over our "illogical" and "emotive" responses. You gotta love how they mask their (often anti-semetic...I don't care what excuses they come up with) rhetoric in the guise of "logical" and/or "truth-seeking" scholarship.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.